Session count discrepancy
The workbook Buctril_Super_Activations.xlsx contains 50
individual session sheets (D1S1–D17S3). Ten of these sheets
(D2S3, D3S3, D4S3, D5S3,
D6S3, D7S3, D8S3, D10S3,
D16S3 and D17S3) have no farmer counts, leaving
40 usable sessions. The summary and dashboard should reflect 40 sessions, although the live dashboard currently lists 38.
Aggregated session metrics
Metrics were extracted from each of the 40 sessions with data. The table below sums key figures across all sessions. Counts from empty sessions are excluded.
| Metric | Sum of 40 sessions | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Farmers present | 1,454 | Average ≈36 farmers per session. Counts appear to be doubled in the original Excel summary. |
| Wheat farmers | 1,442 | Nearly all attendees grow wheat; only 12 non‑wheat farmers. |
| Total wheat acres represented | 22,128 acres | Half of the 44,256 acres shown in the workbook’s summary due to a suspected doubling bug. |
| Farmers aware of Buctril | 1,120 | Farmers who already knew about Buctril before the activation. |
| Farmers who used Buctril last year | 968 | Shows existing adoption among attendees. |
| Farmers who definitely intend to use | 1,303 | Farmers expressing a firm commitment to use Buctril next season. |
| Farmers maybe | 136 | Farmers who said they would think about using Buctril. |
| Farmers not interested | 7 | Very few attendees rejected Buctril outright. |
| Estimated Buctril acres | 21,187 | Acres that farmers indicated they plan to spray with Buctril. |
Top adoption drivers
The reasons farmers gave for using Buctril were aggregated across all sessions. The most common drivers are listed below.
| Reason | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Trust in Bayer brand | 1,071 |
| Safe on crop (no burning) | 893 |
| Good past experience | 884 |
| Better weed control vs. other options | 877 |
| Dealer strongly recommending | 40 |
Top barriers
The main reasons farmers hesitated to adopt Buctril are summarised below.
| Reason | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Price too high | 207 |
| No money / credit available | 80 |
| Fear of crop damage / burning | 80 |
| Happy with existing generic brand | 53 |
Issues observed
- Non‑tabular structure: Each session sheet is formatted as a form rather than a data table, making analysis difficult and error‑prone.
- Missing session data: Ten session sheets lack any counts. It’s unclear whether events were cancelled or data were lost.
- Duplicated counts in Excel summaries: The workbook’s summary tabs double all numeric totals. The dashboard uses correct counts, but the Excel formulas need correction.
- Inconsistent reason lists: Some reason entries contain phone numbers or dealer names instead of genuine reasons.
- No consolidated view: There is no single sheet summarising sessions with metrics. Managers must open individual sheets or rely on flawed summaries.
Recommendations
- Create a consolidated session table: Introduce a new sheet where each row represents a session and columns capture date, location, farmers, acres and adoption metrics. Include top drivers and barriers.
- Fix duplication in summary formulas: Review the formulas in the Excel workbook so totals match the session data.
- Address missing sessions: Populate the empty session sheets or remove them if events were cancelled.
- Clean up reason lists: Standardise reasons and remove stray text such as phone numbers. Provide clear categories.
- Create district‑level summaries: Use pivot tables to summarise sessions and adoption metrics by district or territory.
- Visualise key metrics: Incorporate charts to show awareness, definite intent and reasons for use/not use.
- Document assumptions and definitions: Add a documentation sheet explaining each metric and how values are calculated.
This report is based on the analysis performed on 2026-01-02. For more details, refer to the source Excel file and updated session data.